1. The Petitioner claims to be the owner of 10.2 Ares of land comprised in Re-Survey No.300/5 in Block No.15 of Kadampanadu Village in Adoor Taluk and the residential building thereon. The Petitioner is aggrieved by the issuance of Ext.P11 No Objection Certificate under Rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002, by the Respondent No.3 in his capacity as the District Magistrate to the Respondent No.4/Oil Marketing Company to establish a Petroleum Retail Outlet in a property situated near to his property. The Respondent No.4 obtained Ext.P11 No Objection Certificate to enable the Respondent No.6/Service Co-operative Bank to establish the Petroleum Retail Outlet as a dealer of Respondent No.4 in 12.14 Ares of land in Re-Survey Nos.300/6 & 300/7 of Kadampanad Village, which is covered by Ext.P2 registered Lease Deed executed by its landowner in favour of the Respondent No.6.

2. The Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition challenging Ext.P11 No Objection Certificate to declare that the Respondent No.4 does not have the competency to apply for No Objection Certificate under Rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules as the Respondent No.4 is not in lawful possession of the applied site and to declare that the said site is not suitable for establishing a Petroleum Retail Outlet as the same does not meet the requirements contemplated in Rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules as well as Appendix-IB and Appendix-V of Ext.P1(b) Brochure.

3. The Respondent No.3 has filed a Counter Affidavit dated 21.10.2025, the Respondent Nos.4 & 5 filed a Counter Affidavit dated 14.10.2025 and the Respondent No.6 has filed a Counter Affidavit dated 23.10.2025, opposing the prayers in the Writ Petition. The Petitioner has filed two Reply Affidavits dated 22.10.2025, controverting the contentions in the Counter Affidavits filed by Respondent No.3 and Respondent Nos.4 & 5, and a Reply Affidavit dated 30.10.2025, controverting the contentions in the Counter Affidavit filed by Respondent No.6.

4. I heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Sri.D.Kishore, the learned Government Pleader for the Respondent No.3, Smt. Sheeba G., the learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 & 5, Sri.M.R.Hariraj, instructed by Adv. Sri. Nithin George, the learned Counsel for the Respondent No.6, Sri. Jacob P. Alex, and the learned Counsel for the Respondent No.7.

5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that as per Rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules, read with the Proforma No Objection Certificate therein, the Application for No Objection Certificate has to be submitted by a person who is in lawful possession of the applied site. The Application for No Objection Certificate was submitted by Respondent No.4 and Respondent No.4 is not in lawful possession of the applied site. Ext.P2 Lease Deed would reveal that the person in lawful possession of the land mentioned therein is the Respondent No.6. Ext.P2 provides that the lessee therein, namely, Respondent No.6, shall have the right to sublease the premises to the Oil Marketing Company during and up to the period of the lease by executing a separate registered lease deed. Admittedly, no registered Lease Deed is executed in favour of Respondent No.4 and the Respondent No.4 is incompetent to apply for the No Objection Certificate. Ext.P1 Advertisement would reveal the type of site for the subject Petroleum Retail Outlet is dealer- controlled. In Ext.P1(b) Brochure for Selection of Dealers, it is provided that for Dealer-owned sites, the Applicant should ensure that the land arranged by the Applicant is either registered in the Applicant's name or leased in favour of the Applicant and that for Corporation-owned sites, the Applicant should ensure that the land offered by the Applicant is registered in the name of the Oil Marketing Company either through Long- Term Lease or through outright sale. The said Clauses in Ext.P1(b) would make it clear that in the case of Dealer-owned sites, the Applicant should be the Dealer and in the case of Corporation-owned sites, the Applicant should be the Oil Marketing Company. Since the Respondent No.4 is not in lawful possession of the applied site, Ext.P11 NOC is issued in violation of Rule 144(7)(1)(a) of the Petroleum Rules. Though the Respondent Nos.4 & 5 rely upon the judgment in W.P.(C) No.4377/2022 based on C. Albert Morris v. K. Chandrasekaran and Others [2006 KHC 24], the said decision is not applicable since the amended Rule 144(7)(1)(a) of the Petroleum Rules makes it mandatory to obtain a Report from the Revenue Department regarding the possession of the site by the Applicant is lawful. The verdict in Albert Morris (supra) does not in any way interpret that the Respondent No.3 cannot verify whether the applicant was in lawful possession of the site as contemplated under Rule 144(7) of the Petroleum Rules. In Albert Morris's case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was dealing with the renewal of lease by a tenant holding over and it was held that the District Collector cannot venture into legal aspects coming within the domain of Civil Courts. Ext.P1(a) would reveal that the total amount to be invested for the establishment and operation of the Retail Outlet is Rs.51 lakhs. Since the Respondent No.6 is a Co-operative Society, a previous sanction from the Registrar is essential under Rule 54 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969. Even though Clause (b) of the First Proviso to Rule 54(1) provides that no such sanction is required if the proposed investment is included in the Bye-laws, Ext.R4(a) Bye-laws itself contain a specific clause that such investment can only be made with the approval of the Registrar. Ext.R6(a) is not a Sanction issued by the Registrar in accordance with Clause 3.(14)(1) of the Ext.R4(a) Bye-Laws. Ext.R4(a) is only an approval of the Amendments to the Bye-Laws dated 27.03.2023. Ext.R6(a) Sanction is issued by the Joint Registrar only on 09.10.2025, which is obtained after the filing of the Writ Petition on 09.04.2025. As on the date of submission of the Application, Ext.R6(a) Sanction was not there. When Respondent No.6 did not have the necessary previous Sanction from the Registrar for investing the fund in a Petroleum Retail Outlet, Respondent No.3 should not have sanctioned Ext.P11 NOC on 12.03.2025. Rule 144(7)(1)(b) of the Petroleum Rules mandates obtaining comments from the Police Department regarding the density and impact on traffic. Ext.P8 Report of the Police Department does not state anything about the traffic density or impact on the traffic and it is only a Police clearance as to the non-involvement of the Respondent No.6 in any crime. Rule 144(7)(1)(c) of the Petroleum Rules mandates obtaining comments from the Grama Panchayat. Ext.P12(b) File Notes of the Grama Panchayat would reveal that the Secretary of the Respondent No.7 Panchayat endorsed No Objection for granting Ext.P11 NOC without verifying as to whether the location of the fuel filling station was in accordance with Petroleum Rules. Rule 47 of the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2019, stipulates that the location and construction of fuel tank and vent-pipe shall be governed by the provisions of the Petroleum Rules. Rule 144(7)(1)(d) of the Petroleum Rules mandates obtaining comments from the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) or Public Works Department (PWD) or any other authority regarding road safety, road alignment and road access conformity. Ext.P9 issued by the Motor Vehicle Inspector does not satisfy Rule 144(7)(1)(d). The said Report is silent regarding road alignment and road access conformity. Ext.P11 Order is not appealable under Rule 154 of the Petroleum Rules, and hence the Writ Petition is perfectly maintainable. The learned Counsel concluded his arguments by praying to set aside Ext.P11 NOC and to declare that the Respondent No.4 is incompetent to submit an Application for NOC and the applied site is not suitable for establishing a Petroleum Retail Outlet.

6. The learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 & 5 pointed out that the Proforma under Rule 144(7) of the Petroleum Rules is substituted with effect from 04.03.2024 and the impugned Ext.P11 No Objection Certificate is dated 12.03.2025, and hence the amended Proforma is applicable to the case. The learned Senior Counsel contended that the Petitioner is not a member of the Respondent No.6/Co- operative Society and he is a total stranger to it. Hence, the Petitioner could not have any grievance with respect to the legality of the investment of its funds by the Respondent No.6. Whether the Respondent No.6 is having the right to apply for a Petroleum Retail Outlet or to invest any amount for the same is an internal matter of the Respondent No.6 subject to the scrutiny of authorities under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act and the Rules made thereunder. Hence, the Petitioner could not advance contentions with reference to Rule 54 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules. The learned Senior Counsel invited my attention to Ext.R4(a) approved Bye-laws of the Respondent No.6 which provides for the establishment of Petroleum Retail Outlet by the Respondent No.6 in his own land or in the land leased to the Respondent No.6 after obtaining prior sanction from the Registrar for expending amount out of the funds of the Respondent No.6. The Respondent No.6 has obtained Ext.R6(a) Sanction to expend an amount of Rs.1.60 Crores out of its funds. Ext.R6(a) Sanction is obtained on 09.10.2025 before expending the amount stated therein. Ext.P7 Communication issued by the Tahsildar to the Respondent No.3 would reveal that the proposed site is in conformity with the requirements of the Guidelines of the National Green Tribunal with reference to the prohibited distance from the outlet. It is stated in Ext.P7 that the Petitioner has been permanently residing in Thiruvananthapuram District and he did not respond to the telephonic communications and that the residential building of the Petitioner is situated beyond the prohibited distance of 30 meters. In Ext.P8 Report of the District Police Chief to the Respondent No.3 also, it is stated that there is no objection from the residents in the locality except the Petitioner. Though an attempt was made to record the statement of the Petitioner with respect to his objection against the establishment of the petroleum outlet, the Petitioner was not prepared to give any statement. Ext.P9 Report of the Motor Vehicle Inspector to the Respondent No.3 has reported the matters coming under Rule 144(7)(1)(b) of the Petroleum Rules and after considering the same, the Respondent No.3 has issued Ext.P11 No Objection Certificate. This Court has jurisdiction to interfere with the Ext.P11 Order issued by a statutory authority only if there is arbitrariness and perversity in issuing Ext.P11. The Petitioner cannot challenge Ext.P11 as the Petitioner has not been residing within the vicinity of the subject site. The learned Senior Counsel concluded his arguments, praying for dismissal of the Writ Petition.

7. The learned Counsel for the Respondent No.6, Sri.Jacob P. Alex, advanced arguments supporting the contentions of learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 & 5. The learned Counsel invited my attention to Section 2(i) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, which defines ‘dispute’, and Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, which provides for the settlement of disputes and contended that the contention of the Petitioner with reference to Rule 54 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules is a dispute to be adjudicated under Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act and not by the Respondent No.3. The Petitioner being a total stranger to the Respondent No.6, the Petitioner cannot have any grievance with respect to the investment of the funds by the Respondent No.6. Learned Counsel pointed out that Ext.P1 is dated 28.06.2023, whereas Ext.R4(a) Amended Bye-Laws is dated 27.03.2023, which is much prior to the date of Ext.P1 Advertisement inviting Applications for dealership of Petroleum Retail Outlet. Learned Counsel pointed out that the Respondent No.6 applied for a Petroleum Retail Outlet on account of the policy decision taken by the Central Government to award dealership of Petroleum Retail Outlet to eligible primary agricultural co-operative societies, which is revealed in Ext.R4(b). Learned Counsel pointed out the condition in Ext.R4(c) Letter of Intent providing that it is for the Respondent No.4 to prepare the layouts/applications for obtaining all statutory approvals/licences required for the development of the site offered by the Petitioner and that the Petitioner shall coordinate with the concerned statutory authorities for issuance of all requisite NOCs/statutory approvals/licences which are required for the development of the dealership. Hence, the Respondent No.4 is perfectly justified in submitting the Application for NOC under Rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules to the Respondent No.3 in order to enable the Respondent No.6 to establish the Petroleum Retail Outlet in the land covered by Ext.P2 Lease Deed in favour of Respondent No.6. It is clear from the Ext.P2 Lease Deed that the Respondent No.6 obtained the land as per the Ext.P2 Lease Deed for establishing a Petroleum Retail Outlet under the dealership of an Oil Marketing Company. On the basis of the Ext.P2 Lease Deed, the Respondent No.6 is in lawful possession of the applied site. Since the Respondent No.6 granted Ext.R4(c) Letter of Intent for the applied site, the land covered by Ext.P2 is to be treated as in the lawful possession of Respondent No.4. The learned Counsel concluded his arguments, praying for dismissal of the Writ Petition.

8. The learned Standing Counsel for the Respondent No.7 submitted that Respondent No.7 has reported no objection to Respondent No.3 for issuing a No Objection Certificate to Respondent No.4 as per the decision of its Committee dated 02.08.2024.

9. The learned Government Pleader advanced arguments supporting Ext.P11 No Objection Certificate. Learned Government Pleader with reference to the Counter Affidavit filed by the Respondent No.3 contended that the Petitioner was given an opportunity of personal hearing pursuant to the Petition filed by the Petitioner before the Respondent No.3. A personal inspection was conducted by the Respondent No.3 in the presence of the Petitioner and on inspection it was found that the proposed site strictly adhered to the Central Pollution Control Board Guidelines. The Respondent No.3 obtained Reports from the District Fire Officer, Regional Transport Officer (Enforcement), Tahsildar, District Police Chief and Secretary, Kadampanad Grama Panchayat, and all of them submitted reports favouring the issuance of the No Objection Certificate. Considering all these reports, the Respondent No.3 issued Ext.P11 No Objection Certificate to the Respondent No.4 subject to the conditions mentioned therein. Learned Government Pleader also prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition.

10. I have considered the rival contentions.

11. The first contention advanced by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that the Respondent No.4 cannot maintain an application for No Objection Certificate under Rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules since the Respondent No.4 is not in lawful possession of the applied site. The learned Counsel referred to Clause (1)(a) in the Proforma No Objection Certificate provided under Rule 144(7) of the Petroleum Rules which mandates consideration of the comments from the Revenue Department on the issue regarding the possession of the site by the applicant is lawful and there is an authorisation from the landowner or leaseholder for developing premises under the Rules for storage of petroleum products. Ext.P2 registered Lease Deed would reveal that the Respondent No.6 has obtained possession of the applied site under a lease granted by the landowner. It is clear from the terms of Ext.P2 that the said lease was obtained for establishing and running a Petroleum Retail Outlet after obtaining a dealership from an Oil Marketing Company. It provides that the lessee has the right to sublease the premises to the Oil Marketing Company during and up to the period of the lease by executing a separate registered lease deed. Ext.P2 Lease Deed is dated 14.08.2023. The period of lease as per Ext.P2 is 25 years. The Respondent No.4 granted Ext.R4(c) Letter of Intent dated 20.02.2024 to Respondent No.6 with respect to the land covered by Ext.P2 Lease Deed, taking into account Ext.P2 Lease Deed in favour of the Respondent No.6. There is no dispute between the Respondent No.6 and Respondent No.4 or the landowner. The Respondent No.6 is to execute a registered Lease Deed if necessary for the conduct of the Petroleum Retail Outlet for which the Respondent No.6 and the landowner have no objection and it is permissible under Ext.P2 Lease Deed. The arrangement between the Respondent No.6 and the Respondent No.4 with respect to the applied site needs to be finalised only after getting the required NOC/Permission/Licence for the Petroleum Retail Outlet. There is no point in the Respondent No.6 executing the Lease Deed in favour of the Respondent No.4 without getting NOC/Permission/Licence for the Petroleum Retail Outlet, as there are chances of denying the same due to several reasons. As per the conditions in Ext.R4(c) Letter of Intent, it is for the Respondent No.4 to obtain all statutory approvals/licences required for the applied site and it is for the Respondent No.6 to coordinate with the concerned statutory authorities for the issuance of all the requisite NOCs/statutory approvals/licences for the establishment of the petroleum outlet. In such case, the lawful possession of the applied site by the Respondent No.6 is to be deemed as a lawful possession for the Respondent No.4 to apply for the NOC under Rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules. Hence, the Respondent No.4 has every right to apply and obtain a No Objection Certificate for the applied site under Rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules.

12. The next contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that the Respondent No.6 is not having the required previous sanction from the Registrar to invest its funds in establishing and running the Petroleum Retail Outlet as required under Rule 54 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules. The Petitioner is a total stranger to the Respondent No.6. The Petitioner cannot have any grievance with respect to the utilisation of the funds by the Respondent No.6. Even if the Respondent No.6 makes an investment of its funds without the sanction from the Registrar, it is for the persons connected with Respondent No.6 to complain and it is for the authorities under the Kerala Co- operative Societies Act and the Rules made thereunder to take appropriate action under the provisions of the Kerala Co- operative Societies Act and the Rules made thereunder. It is not a relevant matter for the consideration of the District Authority while considering an application for a No Objection Certificate under Rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules. Rule 54 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules mandates sanction from the Registrar prior to the investment made by the society. There is no need to obtain a sanction previous to the submission of the application for a license to the project in which the investment is to be made. As a matter of fact, the Respondent No.6 has obtained Ext.R6(a) Sanction before making the investment of its funds in the Petroleum Retail Outlet. Hence, the contention of the Petitioner based on Rule 54 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules is unsustainable.

13. As per Rule 144(7) of the Petroleum Rules, the District Authority shall issue a No Objection Certificate in the Proforma provided thereunder. Ext.P11 is issued in the said Proforma. As per the Proforma that existed before the Amendment dated 04.03.2024, it was for the District Authority to consider the matters specified therein under Clause (1). As per the amended Proforma, the District Authority needs to consider the comments of the authorities mentioned under Clause (1) of the Proforma. The Petitioner has no case that comments from any of the authorities mentioned in the Proforma were not obtained by the Respondent No.3 before issuing Ext.P11 No Objection Certificate. It is for the authorities under Clause (1) of the Proforma to object to the issuance of a No Objection Certificate by the District Authority. The Petitioner has not produced any document to show that any of the authorities mentioned in the Proforma have objected to the issuance of the No Objection Certificate by the Respondent No.3. The Counter Affidavit filed by the Respondent No.3 would show that all the authorities submitted favouring the issuance of the No Objection Certificate by the Respondent No.3. In such case, the Respondent No.3 is perfectly justified in issuing Ext.P11 No Objection Certificate to the Respondent No.4.

14. There is no evidence that the Petitioner has been residing in the residential building in the neighbourhood of the applied site. Exts.P7 and P8 show that the Petitioner has been residing in the Trivandrum District. Even assuming that the Petitioner has been residing in the residential building in the neighbourhood of the applied site, it is beyond the prohibited distance of 30 meters. It is clear from Ext.P8 that nobody other than the Petitioner has objected to the establishment of the Petroleum Retail Outlet. It is well settled by the decisions of this Court that the consent of the neighbouring property owners is not necessary for the establishment of the Petroleum Retail Outlet.

15. The Petitioner was heard before passing Ext.P11 No Objection Certificate. The Respondent No.3 even conducted a personal inspection to confirm compliance with the Guidelines issued by the Central Pollution Control Board for the establishment of the Petroleum Retail Outlet. The Petitioner has not pointed out any violation of the Guidelines issued by the Central Pollution Control Board.

16. I do not find any ground or reason to interfere with Ext.P11 No Objection Certificate issued by the Respondent No.3. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed and it is ordered accordingly.